<![CDATA[Indonesia's sexual violence prosecution system operates without an explicit procedural mechanism for Victim Impact Statements (VIS), despite the expanded victim protections introduced by Law No. 12/2022 on Sexual Violence Crimes. Neither the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) nor Sexual Violence Law establishes a dedicated procedural stage, standardized format, or verification standard for VIS, producing inconsistent courtroom practice and exposing proceedings to risks of prejudice and unverified claims. This study addresses three questions: where does VIS stand doctrinally within Indonesian criminal procedure; how do judges and prosecutors in Indonesia currently perceive and handle victim impact narratives in sexual violence cases; and what procedural design would enable structured victim participation without compromising due process? Drawing on doctrinal analysis of the Criminal Procedure Code and Sexual Violence Law, comparative review of VIS regulation in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, and semi-structured interviews with Indonesian judges and prosecutors, the study finds that practitioners recognize the value of VIS in conveying psychosocial harm and calibrating sentencing, yet consistently flag the absence of verification standards, defence disclosure rules, and judicial guidance as practical barriers to its principled use. On this empirical basis, the article proposes a two-track reform: immediate operationalization through a Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) and Prosecutor-General Circular at the post-conviction, pre-sentencing stage, followed by the Criminal Procedure Code amendment to establish nationwide uniformity. The proposed framework translates comparative design principles, standardized forms, corroboration requirements, privacy protocols, and judicial directions, into Indonesia's civil-law procedural architecture.]]>
